2015

Carding in Canada: An
Ethical Assessment
Zhengran (Max) Zhu
Course: SPPA 4190 A
Professors: Dr. Naomi Couto & Dr. Ian Greene
December 10, 2015

Introduction
In recent months, the media has been abuzz with debates about carding. Questions on its
validity and use as well as its impact on minority groups have been explored in great depth. Carding
is the police practice of recording highly detailed personal information of citizens in non-criminal
encounters. This information is recorded on contact cards and entered into a police database for
future use in the search for runaway criminals. With more knowledge of a population, police can
identify criminals sooner and more accurately, thereby reducing the time and cost spent on
investigating false leads. Supporters argue for the need for security, by placing those deemed to be
dangerous behind bars. Critics argue, however, that carding is founded on racist views, another
form of racial profiling towards visible minorities. Statistics have supported the overrepresentation
of blacks in these practices. In 2008, for instance, blacks represented 8.6 percent of Torontos
population yet formed 22.6 percent of all carded individuals; comparatively, white individuals
represented 53.1 percent of Torontonians and a more proportionate 55.2 percent of all carding
entries (Price 18). In addition to the moral concerns it raises, current carding practices in Canada
worsen the racial divide between Canadians and is unjustified under any of the ethical frameworks
of thought.

The following paper presents a background of racial profiling in Canada, including the
statistics that feed into activist movements such as Black Lives Matter in Toronto. Carding is then
examined using consequentialism, Kantian and Rawlsian ethics, and is extended to the Ontario
governments new draft regulations on carding practices in the province. The paper concludes with
a few recommendations on how to ethically address the public interest on this matter.

Racial Profiling in Canada

Racial profiling is any police-initiated action that relies on race, ethnicity, or national
origin and not merely on the behaviour of an individual (Risse and Zeckhauser 135). In theory,
carding does not meet this definition as it offers no instruction on how police should develop the
profile of their divisions. In practice, however, officers are relying on race-based indicators in
high-crime neighbourhoods to identify their so-described random selection of individuals. On
top of the statistic mentioned in the opening paragraph, 88,300 contact cards were recorded in
2013 that identified a person of black skin colour an average of 1,700 cards per week (Price
18). Between 2003 and 2008, 401,000 cards were filled out for black people yet, using the 2006
census, only 208,000 of 2.4 million Torontonians were black (Price 18). This means that, in
addition to the near certainty of being carded, most black communities were carded multiples times
over the five-year period. Such duplication adds no value to the police database but the practice,
collectively, becomes the states surveillance camera to racially oppress visible minorities (Smith
16).

Mutual understanding of the issue is the second part to the problem. Members of the
dominant white group have an experiential gap with the practice as they are targeted by
frequency and proportion to their representation in the population (Smith 15). This leads them
also the skin colour of key decision-makers in the police force to approach the issue idealistically
and resist reform. In reality, carding is a highly ineffective practice that establishes borders and
exclusions for visible minorities that apply at many entry-ways in their lives (Smith 16). Not only
do contact cards end up on an individuals police not criminal record, most of them are done
as a preventative policing strategy with no real results in mind. For example, in 2008, only 566 of

289,400 cards entered were attributed to serious incidents of organized crime, hold up or
homicide (Price 18) while, in Peel Region, police chief Jennifer Evans required three years of
research to present six successful crimes aided by information in contact cards (Grewal). All
evidence indicates that race should not substitute for real knowledge of ones propensity for
criminal activity.

The final part of the problem is the degree of discretion in the hands of police officers. As
part of preventative police work, officers are entrusted with a high level of discretion in order to
act quickly in the prevention of danger. Evidence suggests, however, that some officers abuse the
privilege and use race as a proxy for criminality or general criminal propensity for an entire racial
group (Smith 20). In the early 1970s, for instance, local RCMP officers of Alert Bay, British
Columbia would camp outside a popular Indian bar every Friday night and arrest every Aboriginal
patron that walked out of the bar for public drunkenness (Rudin 34). Regardless of whether these
assumptions of alcohol tolerance were true or not, the existence of racial bias is evident in police
work and significantly breaks the trust between officers and the communities they serve and
protect. It is both started and reinforced within the institution. During training, police officers are
educated on identifying the characteristics of killers using anecdotes, experiences and news articles
(Tator and Henry). As most of these materials link race to criminality, officers begin to think
stereotypically towards these racial groups (Tator and Henry). Once they start work, all officers
white or otherwise are expected to treat black residents with greater suspicion and less respect.
Any black officers who do not fall in line face internal scrutiny for failing to play the game (Cole).
By not eradicating a work culture that supports the practice of systemic discrimination to identify

crime, officers apply this discretion in carding with poor regard for the broader impact of racial
oppression on large visible minorities.

A Consequentialist Approach
To be ethically defensible under utilitarianism, carding must fulfill the normative principle
of delivering the greatest good for the greatest number of people (Dimock 34). Its analysis is
focused on balancing the happiness, or utility, of a decision with the unhappiness, or disutility,
caused to all stakeholders implicated by the decision. This theory is excellent for any policy that
implicates society as duplication of utility, or disutility, across a population factors into felicific
calculations, at the cost of qualitative features such as severity or likeliness of unforeseen
consequences (Dimock 35). To advance a study under this framework, the concept of what a
good entails must be clarified; otherwise, the outcomes considered would be too broad and open
for personal interpretation, in relation to the creation of happiness. For this paper, the common
good is having a society where the social systems, institutions and environments on which we all
depend work in a manner that benefits all people (Velasquez et al. ). One example of the common
good is an effective system of public safety and security, and a just legal system for all members
of society (Velasquez et al.). The notion of a common good is widely contested in academic works
all which are justified and thus this is only one variation of it.

As stated by Mathias Risse and Richard Zeckhauser in their paper Racial Profiling, ethical
arguments for carding or racial profiling tend to be utilitarian in nature (132). They can be
summarized to two ideas: cost-effectiveness and low direct harm to individuals. In light of the
recent opposition to carding in Ontario over the last two years, police forces have responded to

public scrutiny by touting the tangible successes of the practice. Police find it vital to continue this
practice due to the notion that it effectively keeps the streets clean. In Toronto, Deputy Police
Chief Peter Sloly explained that major solved cases of sexual assaults, abuses of children, (and)
horrible multiple shootings have all come out of (the) practice. (CBC). With a more descriptive
profile of a community, officers can direct part of their investigation on individuals that match the
victims recollection of the suspect or suspects. This increases the ratio of true positives and lowers
the ratio of false positives during an investigation, allowing officers to close the case sooner and
save money from the police budget (Thomsen 101). (A true positive is a test result where police
locate the right suspect; false positive is a test result that identifies the wrong person) These savings
will be carried over into future years and the municipalities can allocate less of their revenues to
the police and increase funding for social programs, thereby making more low-income earners
happier.

If the act of carding was examined in itself, academics argue that the incremental harm to
visible minorities would be very small. In a non-racist society, carding would be desired by all
members of society if it proportionately targets the racial groups more prone to committing crime
(Badhi et al. 32). In Canada, for instance, 22 percent of the federal prison population is Aboriginal
while 10 percent is black (Fine). Racial profiling, according to this viewpoint, is just smart law
enforcement that focuses resources on groups of higher risk to maximize efficiency (Badhi et al.
38). Efficiency delivers results that can trump individual or collective rights of a group. Risse and
Zeckhauser compare non-racist racial profiling to higher car insurance for young drivers (145).
Even if the driver is not dangerous, he or she accepts the higher cost due to other bad apples in the
age group. Carding follows the same principle; while not all black or Aboriginal people are

criminals, they should acquiesce to the higher scrutiny as it protects others and themselves
and spurs other benefits such as more economic activity in the community (Reiman 14). Visible
minorities, however, already perceive society as racist and thus attribute the slight inconvenience
to their skin colour and historical encounters with the ruling class (Badhi et al., 38). This is a
poor proxy for the real damage caused by carding. Even if carding is banned, the expressive harm
would still remain. The actual harm, then, is small and should be accepted for the level of public
safety it brings to all members of society.

As utilitarianism is an agent-neutral theory, the practice of carding is not bound to address

any agent relative concerns that some groups may share. Visible minorities may perceive the issue
differently but their unique viewpoints, arisen from experiences of racialization, are not factored
into the overall assessment, regardless of the public perception on the matter. It is important,
however, to investigate carding from a rule utilitarianism approach as well, as the practice ties into
a wider attitude towards visible minorities in police forces across Canada. Between 1986 and 1992,
for instance, police intensified their patrol of low-income areas in Ontario targeting black people
as suspects in the war on drugs (Badhi et al. 34) This led to an overrepresentation of Blacks in
prison in spite of the lack of evidence that members of the race were more likely to use or profit
from drugs than other racial groups (Badhi et al. 34). Ultimately, the perceived success of profiling
Blacks through high incarceration rates fueled the already existing stereotype that young Black
males were likely to be involved in drug related crimes (Badhi et al. 34). The rule utilitarian
approach asks if these attitudes are justified enough to be formulated into a general rule that racebased indicators should be used as a foundation of policing strategies in Canada.

The disutility of racial profiling is not commensurable to its proposed benefits. To be

justified, it must have sufficiently great benefit and great likelihood that the flagged individuals
are connected to a current or future crime (Thomsen 101). While the benefit of halting a future
drug deal is significant, each profiled individual has an equally and very small probability of being
positively identified as a criminal down the road. Despite this, the bulk of complaints against racial
profiling relates to the discomfort, inconvenience and humiliation that citizens unduly, and
innocently, suffer from the intensive scrutiny (Thomsen 91). Resentment, ranging from shame to
indignation, becomes a direct, intense form of disutility in their lives as it impedes their ability to
be happy. African-Americans have gone so far to describe the police as the most prominent
reminder of (their) second-class citizenship in the United States (Kennedy 152).

The father of modern policing, Sir Robert Peel, believed that people are the police and the
police are the people (The Economist). Applying unjustified assumptions on racial groups
increase the divide between police and the people. Blacks and other visible minorities no longer
view the norms of the legal system and its enforcers as legitimate, increasing the potential for
criminality (Thomsen 106). Victims feel distrusted and disrespected by the system which, at times,
can act as the nudge that pushes a would-be criminal against the law (Thomsen 106). When
executed without racial bias, profiling is an effective tool to deter criminal activity as would-be
criminals are more fearful of being discovered for potential crimes. Racial profiling promotes the
opposite an anti-deterrent effect. By racializing certain groups as more criminal than others, more
police resources are divested into the group and away from action against other groups (Thomsen
105). This makes it efficient in targeting potential offenders in the group but loses the deterrent
effect on those not part of the racial group, creating a smaller effect at a city- or nation-wide level

(Thomsen 105). Both alienation and anti-deterrent effects demonstrate that racial profiling, as a
police practice, does not serve the common good of an efficient system of public safety. More
crime, rather than less crime, is perpetuated on society and debunks the very purpose of racial
profiling of making communities safer through cooperation and preventative police work. More,
citizens are exposed to danger when racial stereotypes affect police objectivity.

From a utilitarian viewpoint, the practice of carding does not produce the greatest good.
Some tangible benefits to the program exist and removing the individual action will not alleviate
the pain of systemic racism in society for its victims. Carding occurs, however, due to the general
rule of racial profiling within the police forces in Canada. Adopting an ideology of using
observable characteristics in crime is counteractive to the overall effort of lowering criminal
activity in a community and is a deliberate violation of fundamental Charter rights, including
equality rights protected under Section 15 (Badhi et al. 42) Most importantly, racial scrutiny causes
an intense, long-lasting source of unhappiness for its victims but only creates an uncertain benefit
for public safety. Felicific calculus ascribes more weight to these characteristics in calculating the
greater amount of good and, consequently, the more intense negative outcomes tip the ethical
balance of the practice.

A Kantian Approach
Under consequentialist moral theories, carding is evaluated in empirical terms. Good
outcomes, such as a lower crime rate or better police investigative techniques, are balanced with
bad outcomes, such as Charter violations on individuals, to determine if the practice is ethical or
not. For Kant, the right decision is made a priori to any rule or consequence of actions. Rather, the

intrinsic value of an act is defined by how well it abides by universal principles and if it can be
supported by good, justifiable reasons (Woof 2). It must respect the people that it implicates by
treating each of them as ends in themselves, no matter how good or beneficent the outcomes may
be for a larger population (Dimock 43). By perfecting the principles of universality and respect for
persons, the end decision will be based from perfectly good will to produce a good state of affairs
and meet the categorical imperative for the benefit of society (Woof 3).

Carding subordinates the ends of a visible minority by treating them as means for the White
majority. By acting on the assumption that certain crimes are committed disproportionately by
certain racial groups, individuals are being profiled on a characteristic that partly constitutes their
identity (Risse and Zeckhauser 145). They are not seen as rational beings in themselves but rather
as mere members of a larger group, adopting its characteristics at the exclusion of their personal
ones. This is a violation of the respect for persons principle as the state is depriving them of their
ability to act on their own ends, including the freedom to walk without multiple requests to be
carded, a lower chance of getting arrest (by not existing in the database) or social segregation
among a mixed-race group of friends (Thomsen 106). As a provider of social welfare for all
Canadians, it is a duty for the police to owe reasonableness to each individual separately (Reiman
8). The racial group does not contribute to society as one entity. Rather, individuals engage in
different types of work and make their own contributions to society, such as tax payments. As
such, the state ought to treat each person with respect by not relying on cheap-to-observe
characteristics in the name of a public good (Lombardo). By disrespecting the rational agency of
visible minorities, carding does not treat individuals as ends in themselves but only as a means to
create an unproven sense of security. They are unable to exercise autonomy and choice over how

they should be treated by the police as they have already been labelled and fitted with
predetermined attributes.

If the current form of carding was universalized, society would devolve into a state divided
by class, race, or creed. Each community would have a permanent underclass that, due to the power
of carding enforcers, would have no means to overcome it. Carding would inhibit the ability for
certain groups to get ahead as the constant police checks paints a picture of them as violent,
dangerous or untrustworthy. Some of these outcomes have emerged in Canadian society after three
decades of its deployment. In telephone surveys done with 1,257 Ontarians, 43 percent of black
male residents were stopped by Toronto Police over a two year period (Badhi et al. 34). Among
those, 17 percent were reported to have been stopped on two or more occasions (Badhi et al. 34).
The figures for White residents were drastically lower at 25 and 8 percent, respectively, as they
were less likely to be criminalized or face the suspicious eye (Badhi et al. 34). The criminalization
then plays out in different parts of their lives. Black Canadians, for instance, face a wage gap of
10 to 15 percent from non-visible minority counterparts despite being more educated and living in
urban centres (Grant). A higher chance of being arrested due to more criminalization by police
lead to a criminal record that influences job prospects. Police scrutiny also shapes how media
communicates to peoples views, by portraying blacks as the other and dangerous group to
hire. In sum, carding is more than a set of questions. If universalized, an entire system of systemic
discrimination could arise and structurally damage the lives of visible minorities in Canada.

There is questionable evidence on how much carding or racial profiling is justified by

public safety concerns. The use of narratives or hegemonic stories in police training, along with

10

contributions of opinion leaders in the police force, reinforce and reproduce existing ideologies of
power and inequality in society (Tator and Henry). Most of these narratives portray race as one
indicator of criminality and encourages stereotypical thinking about particular racial and cultural
groups. These images remain once officers enter the workforce and, over time, becomes
reproduced in the form of police bias in carding. The issue here is whose duties should be
performed by the police. On one side, they are legally obligated to fulfill their duty to their
employer and managing social order through various policing techniques, including racial
profiling. On the other hand, they owe a duty to protect citizens by serving and protecting their
needs, as in the case of the Toronto Police. The best decision under Kantian ethics is the duty to
protect citizens from harm. Even if the police are controlled by their employer, the inherent and
original purpose is to make better as a whole. The means that the government chooses, influenced
by decades of radicalized relationships with groups, is wrong by racially separating the people into
different groups by race. Carding supports a shift from that intention and is therefore wrong. If the
duty was universalized, the world would be a safer place to live as everyone would be able to live
in peace. Each individual would be treated as ends in themselves as a secure society enables them
to have dignity and exercise moral judgments, in the highest form of humanity. Fulfilling ones
duty to their employer does not meet the categorical imperative. While each officers loyalty to
the police chief is a great sign of respect, someone at the top of the management chain will not
have an employer. This opens the door for unethical or poor decisions that, if executed, may cause
undue damage to an entire population. Such lack of self-control makes the duty to employer an
invalid one under Kant and, consequently, any act of carding made under the loyalty to the force
is unethical.

11

In the Kantian view on ethics, the act of carding is not acceptable. By perceiving all
individuals as uniform members of a racial group with the same characteristics, habits and
personality traits visible minorities are treated in terms of a group membership and not as they
deserve. This shows a lack of respect for victims as ends in themselves, without the ability to act
in autonomy and define their own identity. Furthermore, the practice would be incoherent if it was
universalized by all police forces in the world. It creates two classes of citizenship, opening up the
possibility of class warfare or disharmony in society. The maxim cannot be universalized either,
as it cannot be expected that everyone will be judged on genuine grounds of suspicion and not by
the colour of their skin. A lack of care for visible minorities may eventually rid all minorities in
Canada, leaving only one race of White Canadians in Canada. Carding fails both components of
the Categorical Imperative and does not meet the supreme principle of morality.

A Rawlsian Approach
Rawlsian ethics asks if the practice of carding would be acceptable within a society in the
original position. The rules of the society would be set by a group of rational individuals that have
knowledge of general matters, such as history or economics, but make decisions behind a veil of
ignorance that denies them knowledge of which ethnic identities and situations are more subject
to racism than others (Reiman 6). Public policy would agree in the original position if it is in every
actual persons interest. It does not guarantee that every person is content with the outcome, as
long as it is equitable to all and rational for them to accept carding when they are ignorant of where
they stand in the practice. There would be no knowledge, for instance, of the power or wealth
imbalance between visible and non-visible minorities as mentioned above.

12

The challenge remains on whether racism is inherently part of Canadas social fabric and
identity. In a perfectly non-racist society, the act of racial profiling can be ethical if it is benefits
the investigation of serious crimes. Crime is harmful to both the individual and society by affecting
the way people work, socialize and raise their families; thus, it is in everyones best interest to
have a criminal system that apprehends, punishes and deters crime (Reiman 10). Some
populations may face greater inconvenience than others. This is tolerable as long as the practice is
done in proportion to the gravity of crimes it assists in investigation (Reiman 11). The arrest of
Min Chen for the murder of Cecilia Zhang in 2003, for example, was attributed to carding as Chen
was carded for his suspicious activity at a fishing pond, which was linked back to his potential
presence at the Zhang household at the time of the kidnapping (Blatchford). In this case, carding
would have been acceptable as the murder of a child warrants more intensive measures to catch
the murderer. If not caught, a psychopathic child killer may reoffend and risk the safety of children
and other members of the general public. Race was not the determining factor that caused Chen to
be carded; however, as police were looking for an Asian individual who knew the Zhangs, the
officer took additional effort to follow up on his potential involvement in the case and produced a
compelling case of his whereabouts that morning (Blatchford). Under the original position of a
non-racist society, this use of race is acceptable as it increased the effectiveness of the criminal
justice system in meeting the safety concerns posed to society, making everyone better off with,
rather than without, it (Reiman 11). Chen was inconvenienced on general grounds and the level of
inconvenience commensurate with the degree of crime involved.

In a society where racism is part of the general knowledge of lawmakers, however, the
original position would prohibit the practice of carding. It can be reasonably believed that racial

13

profiling would cause unreasonable direct harm and violation to some racial groups, influencing
how the non-visible majority perceives the minorities (Reiman 17). When exercised by the police,
this perception may influence how the majority treats the minorities and lead to violations of their
human rights. There may be more indifference and hostility towards Black people; an increased
perception that Blacks import crime to neighbourhoods; discouragement of Blacks from working
in White neighbourhoods at night, or the potential to downplay Whites as perpetuators of violence
and crime (Reiman 16). All of these are forms of ungrounded discrimination that would be
assigned to a law-abiding Black person. Racist patterns in employment, thought or behaviour deny
victims the rights that a White person would otherwise receive under those circumstances, such as
right to travel or the presumption of innocence. Under Rawlsian ethics, the existence of more
extensive rights to equivalent groups of same office and position is not a fair social arrangement
(Couto). As Rawls said in the Theory of Fairness, no one shall possess an inviolability founded
on justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override (Kant 3). The pursuit of a
public good, such as safety, should not be achieved through an unfair social arrangement where
different racial groups are assigned different sets of basic liberties. Infringing on the basic rights
of minorities deforms their prospects in life (Nussbaum). For instance, not allowing them to work
in certain jobs restricts their potential to be successful and acquire wealth, which further limits
their ability to lead a higher standard of living or overcome some socioeconomic barriers that
society places upon them as racialized, second-class citizens. Allowing this to happen builds an
unjust society with no free and fair cooperation between citizens and one that, if left by itself, will
reflect the brutish, savage state of nature described by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (Nussbaum).

14

Canadian society resembles the latter of the two scenarios. As aforementioned, racism has
a long and inglorious history in Canada with serious impacts on search, surveillance, arrest and
incarceration rates within racialized communities (Badhi et al. 31). Aboriginal people, for
example, are extremely overrepresented in the criminal justice system. As 2.8 percent of Canadas
population, Aboriginals represent 17 percent of the federal offender population and are six times
more likely to be incarcerated than any other race (Badhi et al. 37). Parole hearings are waived
more frequently by them than any other offender and parole is denied at a higher rate than nonAboriginal offenders (Badhi et al. 37). These pieces of evidence point to a society where racism is
systemic and real in the way visible minorities live in Canada. Marginally inconvenient policing
techniques, such as carding, immediately arouse extreme feelings of racism among racialized
communities (Badhi et al. 31). In other words, these people perceive racism as the primary driver
of injustice. With such an embedded notion among members of society, it would be unreasonable
for Canadians to omit racism behind the veil of ignorance. Hypothetical lawmakers in the original
position ought to formulate rules that consider racism as a general source of injustice. Selected
social arrangements must consider whether it heals the divided caused by racism and, furthermore,
if various racial groups would accept them (Couto). Racial profiling makes visible minorities
worse off than the dominant White class and no ethnic group would accept the practice of carding;
thus, carding is unethical in the Rawlsian view.

Is Ontarios Ban on Carding Ethical?

All three approaches used in this paper have demonstrated carding as an unethical practice
that violates the rights of visible minorities to a good life. On October 28, 2015, the Ontario
government unveiled draft regulations to amend the Police Services Act to eliminate carding in

15

the province. The plan entails a ban on random and arbitrary collection of information starting on
the first of March 2016 with new procedures on voluntary interactions with police beginning on
the first of July (Taber). Additionally, officers must attend mandatory training in areas such as
bias awareness, discrimination and awareness and police forces will release annual reports on
any non-arbitrary carding information collected, including the number of cards written up as well
as the age, gender and race of the individuals involved (Taber). The draft is currently undergoing
a 45-day public consultation period before it is finalized and introduced to the legislature in 2016.

The governments decision to end carding was an excellent ethical move to address the
increasing tension within racialized communities against the practice; however, the loopholes of
the policy limits how effective it may be in addressing the ethical issues faced in the status quo.
The ban on random and arbitrary collection of information is a very open-ended policy where there
is no way for the public to ensure that the ban is enforced in the spirit of the (soon-to-be) legislation.
Being in a high crime neighbourhood, for example, cannot be the sole reason for a street check
anymore but it may still exist as one of the possible reasons (Hudson). Moreover, there is no
definition of what random collection entails. As long as officers can prove some sort of suspicion
from a criminal offence to quickly removing ones hands from their pockets they reserve the
right to gather identifying information for intelligence purposes (Rusonik). Officers may also
card someone if they develop suspicions during the course of an informal conversation. As long
as they had no intention at the start of the conversation to record information, it would be very
hard under case law to determine that their actions were arbitrary and not random (Rusonik).
All of these loopholes in the legislation make no changes to the status quo. The actual disutility of
the practice will remain high for racial minorities as they could still be manipulated into providing

16

their identifying information under the pretext of a casual conversation. By forcing officers to
adopt alternative means to acquire race statistics which was not outlawed by the regulation will
make visible minorities feel more humiliated and distrustful of the police. It may discourage them
from engaging in casual conversations at all with officers, in turn reducing the efficiency of
criminal investigations and the amount of public safety and security (the public good) that can be
delivered. Assuming that some racial groups are more likely to commit crimes, engagement with
those ethnic communities may bring more light on the criminals tendencies or way of thinking,
enabling the police to accurately track them down. All of these outcomes depend on the willingness
of Ontarians to speak with their police force. If the police are resorting to unethical tactics to sustain
data collection initiatives, the regulations are creating more disutility for the province and is not
aiding the attainment of the greatest good.

There is a stronger argument in favour of the ban from a deontological standpoint. By

compelling officers to notify citizens of their right to not fill out a contact card, the regulations
respect the rational decision-making process of the individual by letting them decide if they wish
to participate or not. This demonstrates the respect for persons principle (Dimock 43). The ban on
carding could also be universalized around the globe. By outlawing the right for police officers to
explicitly target young Black or Aboriginal males for carding, it will reduce the public perception
that Black or Aboriginal youth are more prone to committing crimes than their peers. This may
mend the class division created under current practices of racial profiling and make the society
safer by bolstering trust between police and the people. By meeting the Categorical Imperative,
the new carding ban is theoretically an ethically defensible one as it meets the standards of
supreme morality under Kantian ethics. It ensures the criminal justice system is closer to fulfilling

17

its perfect duty of justice by closing another means for officers to reproduce existing power and
inequality in society. The only point of concern relates to the enforcement of regulations. Based
on the draft document, there is no mechanism for ensuring that officers do notify all citizens of
their voluntary right to participation nor any punishments for violating the regulations (Hudson).
These take away from the original spirit of the regulations and thus does not carry the same ethical
assessment as in the codified version.

Ontarios ban on carding would also be supported under the Rawlsian view of justice as
fairness (Couto). By eliminating practices rooted in ungrounded racial discrimination, the division
of human rights is more equally distributed across the province. Like all of Canada, racism is
embedded in the beliefs of Ontarians and the sensitivity of the issue must be recognized in the
original position. This regulation reflects a concerted effort to ensure that visible minorities do not
receive any fewer rights on the street than non-visible minorities. To create a more justified social
arrangement, the government could propose to delete the abundant cache of information from
carding practices in the past (Hudson). Not doing this will continue to put former carding victims
at risk of being criminalized or losing their right to be free from suspicion, as their profiles will be
reviewed every time the police are looking for a suspect.

Conclusion
It is without doubt that carding cannot be morally justified. The police force is a reflection
of the hegemony that existed in Canadas history. Historically, people of colour have been
portrayed as inferior to the dominant race. These values continue to be reinforced through the work
of police in racial profiling activities. As crime, criminality and threat to security are often viewed

18

as parallel with race as an indicator of dangerousness, the police profile citizens on their racial
backgrounds regardless of where they were born as a means to maintain order in society. These
people are viewed as threats to law and order and thus police feel legitimized in discriminating
against these groups. The intention of a police force, however, has always been and should be to
protect its people. Carding, then, does not protect citizens but merely generates a second-class of
citizenry that ensures their continued isolation in society, based on their inherent characteristics.
Rooted in the belief that ones skin is indicative of ones criminality, people of colour are
criminalized every day in Canada at no fault of their own. Hence, the Ontario ban on carding is
justified in order to ensure that the greatest good for the greatest number of people is met, that
policing remains true to its original duty of protecting and serving the people rather than acting as
agents of the state as well as to maintain equality in the way each member of our society ought to
be treated. In a society that takes criminality seriously and its impacts ripple through employment,
quality of life and education prospects, this ban might be the breath of fresh air that racial
minorities need. By eliminating profiling by arbitrary characteristics, vulnerable groups can
perhaps, at last, lead lives free from harassment. It may be a small step to the larger problem of
racial discrimination; however, it is the largest step the government can take to restore the basic
freedoms bestowed to them as people of this country.

19

Works Cited
Bahdi, Reem, Bent Richard, Cohen Irwin et al. Racial Profiling. Vancouver: British Columbia
Civil Liberties Association, 2010. 1-86. Print.

Blatchford, Christie. "Christie Blatchford: Controversial carding Practice Is an Invaluable

Source of Intelligence for Police, If Done Right." National Post 5 June 2015, Full
Comment sec. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.

Cole, Desmond. "New Carding Rules Cant Regulate Decency and Respect in Policing: Cole."
Toronto Star 28 Oct. 2015. Web. 15 Nov. 2015.

Couto, Noemia (Naomi). Contemporary Liberal Theory: John Rawls and Justice as Fairness.
York University. Toronto, ON. 30 Sep 2015. PowerPoint Presentation.

Dimock, Susan, Mohamad Al-Hakim, Garrett MacSweeney, Alessandro Manduca-Barone,

and Anthony Antonacci. "Moral Principles and Moral Theories." Ethics and the Public
Service: Trust, Integrity, and Democracy. Nelson, 2013. 34-47. Print.

Fine, Sean. "Black Inmates Face Second-class Status in Canadian Prisons, Ombudsman Warns."
The Globe and Mail. 26 Nov 2013. Web. 17 Nov 2015.

Grant, Tavia. "Black Canadians Paid Less on Average than Whites: Study." The Globe and Mail.
4 Mar 2011, Economy Lab sec. Web. 13 Nov 2015.
20

Grewal, San. "Peel Police Struggle to Find Proof Carding Works, Emails Reveal." Toronto Star.
30 Sep 2015, Urban Affairs sec. Web. 19 Nov 2015.

Hudson, Sandy. How Ontario can really end carding. Toronto Star. 10 Nov 2015. Web.
13 Nov 2015.

Kennedy, Randall. Race, Crime, and the Law. New York City: Pantheon, 1997. 152. Print.

Lombardo, Crystal. "5 Essential Pros and Cons to Racial Profiling." Anti-Alcohol & Tobacco
Blog. NLCATP, 17 Jan. 2015. Web. 6 Dec. 2015. <http://nlcatp.org/5-essential-pros-andcons-of-racial-profiling/>.

Nussbaum, Martha. "The Enduring Significance of John Rawls." The Chronical Review.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, 20 July 2001. Web. 16 Nov. 2015.

Price, Neil. This Issue Has Been with Us for Ages: A Community-based Assessment of Police
Contact Carding in 31 Division: Final Report. Toronto: Logical Outcomes, 2014. 18.
Print.

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Belknap of Harvard UP, 1971. 3. Print.

Reiman, Jeffrey. "Is Racial Profiling Just? Making Criminal Justice Policy in the Original
Position." The Journal of Ethics (2010): 3-19. Print.

21

Risse, Mathias, and Richard J. Zeckhauser. "Racial Profiling." Philosophy & Public Affairs
(2004): 131-70. Print.

"Power to the People." The Economist 2 Dec. 2010. The Economist Newspaper Limited. Web.
17 Nov. 2015.

Rudin, Jonathan. Aboriginal Peoples and the Criminal Justice System. Toronto: [Ipperwash
Inquiry], 2005. 34. Print.

Rusonik, Reid. Why do police continue to card? Toronto Star. 9 Nov 2015. Web.
13 Nov 2015.

Smith, Charles. Conflict, Crisis and Accountability: Racial Profiling and Law Enforcement in
Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives/Centre Canadien de Politiques
Alternatives, 2007. 16. Print.

Taber, Jane. Ontario unveils draft regulations to ban police carding. The Globe and Mail.
28 Oct 2015. Web. 13 Nov 2015.

Tator, Carol and Henry Frances. Racial Profiling In Canada: Challenging the Myth of "A Few
Bad Apples". Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. Print.

22

Thomsen, Frej Klem. "The Art of the Unseen: Three Challenges for Racial Profiling."
The Journal of Ethics (2010): 89-117. Print.

"Toronto Police Carding an 'incredibly Effective Tool'" CBC. 4 Jul 2013. Web. 17 Nov 2015.

Velasquez, Manuel, Claire Andre, Thomas Shanks, and Michael J. Meyer. "The Common
Good." Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University, 21 Mar. 1992.
Web. 21 Nov. 2015. <http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/commongood.html>.

Woof, Bill. Kant and Deontological Theories. Schulich School of Business, York University.
Toronto, ON. 19 Feb 2013. PowerPoint Presentation.

23